The T2 submachine gun was Auto-Ordnance’s entry into the ongoing competition to replace the classic Thompson submachine gun with something more economical to produce. It was a closed-bolt, select-fire design using a progressive trigger and a tubular receiver, along with stand Thompson gun magazines. Examples were made in both 9mm and .45 ACP, but it was the .45 version that the US military tested. Ultimately is was rejected in favor of the Inland/Hyde M2 submachine gun (which looks rather similar to it) – which was in turn quickly replaced by the much simpler M3 “Grease Gun” that would truly replace the Thompson in US military hands.
Technically speaking, if it is unfireable due to damage it falls into the “dewat” category under NFA, until repaired. Which would probably require the fabrication of completely new parts duplicating the originals and seriously impact its collector value.
The rear sight was a 50-yard “notch” and a 100-yard “peep”. Anything beyond that was considered a waste of time in .45 ACP. Note that the later M3 “Grease Gun” has a fixed peep rear sight set for 100 yards, period.
The odd angle of the buttplate was purely for operator safety reasons. Note the short distance between the heel of the stock and the rear end of the receiver.
The shooter had to hold his head “back” rather than get a proper cheek-weld to avoid the receiver hitting him in the face due to recoil, especially in full-auto fire. The buttplate angle was intended to make a more upright stance easier to maintain without muscle strain. It’s interesting to compare it to the buttplate angle of a typical wheel-lock hunting rifle of the late 16th Century, notably German-made “tschinke” types.
The Hyde-Inland M2 was never actually adopted by the U.S. Army. the 400 or so made mostly went to the FBI. (!) They ended up being used mainly by the various covert operations teams that worked in Latin America during the war to keep tabs on German sympathizers- and governments that were ostensibly on “our side” but were dealing with Germany and Japan under the table, mainly supplying them with raw materials such as rubber and bauxite carried on neutral-flagged vessels.
The Hyde-Inland actually bore a remarkable resemblance to the T2, externally;
But internally they were rather different.
The United Defense UD M-42 SMG was considerably more common;
About 15,000 were manufactured, the majority being used by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and the British Special Operations Executive (SOE).
Being a 9mm, it fit more easily into the logistics train of both organizations. Considerable numbers were airdropped to resistance units, notably in Greece and the Balkans.
“Technically speaking, if it is unfireable due to damage it falls into the “dewat” category under NFA, until repaired. ”
That would make sense, but unfortunately the ATF does not see things that way. A DEWAT is supposed to be permanently inoperable and beyond repair, though high demand and skyrocketing prices tend to insure that just about every DEWAT will eventually be brought back from the grave.
Anyway, this non-working Thompson is listed as a registered machine gun (+C&R).
Does inoperable mean one must smash this gun with a sledgehammer, corrode it with acid, and then blow it to bits with dynamite just to ensure it can’t be considered a gun anymore?
Usual DEWAT methods are;
1. Removal of all firing mechanism.
2. Welding of firing mechanism components together and then welding them into receiver.
3. Welding steel rod into barrel.
4. Welding action shut.
5. Cutting bolt face off at 45-degree angle to make it impossible to actually chamber and fire a live round.
And other even more esoteric techniques.
In fact, there are so many different ways to “DEWAT” a firearm that it’s entirely possible to take two or more arms of the same type that have been “DEWAT’ed”, use their working bits to assemble a working example, and then still have the others as DEWATs.
Which rather makes a farce of the entire legal procedure.
That’s why DEWATs are still registered on the NFTR as transferable machineguns (albeit as tax free registrations). They transfer on a Form 5 (tax exempt transfer).
They can be legally reactivated if you pay the $200 registration tax and file the correct application (which you have to wait for the approval to return before you begin work, but the approval is automatic unless you are legally barred from *owning* a gun, NFA or not). Non-licensed individuals use a Form 1 (“*Making* and registering”) and licensed FFL/SOT manufacturers use a Form 2 (*Manufacturing* and registering”) and don’t have to pay the $200 tax (they pay a single tri-annual fixed tax for their SOT regardless of however many NFA guns they manufacture). The forms are used just to keep the paperwork straight and collect the correct taxes — legally, the gun is already registered and so is grandfathered, so 922(o) (prohibition on new transferable MGs) doesn’t apply.
Because you can legally reactivate a DEWAT, they sell for pretty much exactly what they would if they were fully functional (after all, with the prices of MGs these days, the machining costs for reactivation are just crumbs compared to the total price.)
DEWAT is legally distinct from a demilitarized, or “destroyed” MG, which involves cutting up the critical portions of the receiver to ATF satisfaction (which changes over time — current standards are generally three cuts through specified areas on the receiver that ATF calculates are critical for function, with a torch that removes a 1/4″ kerf of metal; previous demils were authorized with saw cuts, often just cutting a simple tube receiver, for instance, into a few pieces — the problem is, they could be rather easily repaired and restored to function…)
The thing about DEWATs are, since the law didn’t define “unserviceable” until 1968, they can be DEWAT’ed in a variety of methods, depending on what ATF called for at the time. Some of these DEWAT methods are laughably easy to reverse, others are a lot harder.
I read about the development of the Thompson T2 in the book “The gun that made the 20’s roar. Neat to see a video of it in the flesh.
“along with stand Thompson gun magazines.”
I always wondered: why M1 Thompson and M3 Grease Gun have different magazines?
When that later was in development, stick magazine for M1 existed, why not use existed design?
The M3 magazine was actually developed from the Sten magazine. The idea being to have one that was cheaper and faster to manufacture than the Thompson magazine.
BTW, the M3 was designed to use an adapter kit (barrel, bolt, recoil spring, magazine housing) to convert it to 9mm using standard Sten magazines. AFAIK, while considerable numbers of the adapter sets were manufactured, nobody ever actually used them. Generally, everybody preferred the M3 in .45 ACP.
Thanks, eon, for the explanation! I was about half-way through Ian’s video before I realized, with considerable stupefaction, that the T2 was NOT the Hyde M2…! Very interesting.
I have seen Chi-com “Type 38” Stens, whereby a Chi-nat Sten copy [albeit full-auto-only] was actually converted to 7.62x25mm so it might use Sudayev PPS43 magazines.
Those 9mm M3 “Grease gun” conversion sets are really neat, IMHO. Do recall that Argentina made both a Sten clone, although with a wood piece under the trigger plate to serve as a sort of rudimentary fore stock, and also the PAM, or “pistola ametralladora” as a 9mm M3 Grease gun. Unless I am mistaken, there was a variant that required the user to hold it with both hands, with a Madsen M50-type safety operated by the support hand.
Fascinating and informative!
Oh. I read an interesting book decades ago about a Greek OSS operative who was aiding the Greeks. He brought a couple of the Marlin UD-42s, and so the book was filled with photos of everyone holding the same gun as a photo prop. There had been a bunch of Ukrainians who joined the Germans to escape the camps, as with very many concentration camp personnel in Poland, and this particular group defected to the Greek resistance when they sensed that the Germans were going to lose the war. All of the photos of those guys looked even extra staged, if that is possible, and one gathered that they were used as a labor battalion by the Greek partisans in question. There are also photos of UD-42s in Crete among the resistance groups there that cooperated with SOE as well.
Here’s a quickie “recognition chart” on Argentine SMGs;
The Halcon ML57 was the original Sten-based gun, I believe, and the later ML63 version added the wood around the magazine housing. It’s worth noting that Argentine SMGs tended to have long, stiff magazine housing tubes, which allow the housing to be used as a foregrip with risking bending the magazine or “canting” it, causing a jam. Very sensible, IMHO.
Argentine experimentation with SMG design predates WW2, as seen here;
Keep in mind that this little “music box” predates the Sten, MP-38/40, etc., by almost a decade.
Surprisingly modern-looking, even today.
Ah yes, thanks. The Halcón was certainly based on the Sten. The MEMS not so much. I hope that this works, but here is the actual Sten MkII clone:
This is basically a Sten MkII with the cheaper-to-make “skeleton butt,” but with an abbreviated locking nut/fore grip tube since it was no longer to be employed that way, what with finger proximity to the ejection port! I must confess, that when I fired a Sten MkII with the “T” stock fitted, I held it under the trigger plate since I was worried about my own fingers getting pinched in the ejection port, and I knew that I’d induce a jam or cant it if I held it by the magazine or magazine housing on the side.
I’d have preferred the MkI or MkIII variant, frankly.
In an existence far, far away, many years ago…
Okay, sorry ’bout that, my personal preference was the loop-stock on the Sten as the competing “T” variety had a marked tendency to hook onto something or other on egress from a helicopter, APC, or whatever the local transportation was. I can recall a face-plant experience involving a hooked “T” stocked Sten and a water-buffalo. Being as this was 1969 and on then peaceful Okinawa, there was little drama but some considerable comedy involved. Being the smooth operator that I was, (and am) I bowed to the locals and they reciprocated with applause…and asked me if I’d mind doing it again as some the kids hadn’t seen me do it.
Ah yes, the fascinating world of South American subguns…. Brazil made a bunch of .45 ACP Madsen clamshells in the 50s but the one I’d love to see (doubt if I will, not having access to the arsenals of former and current military dictatorships) was the Ingram M6. Ingram’s first design, US made but mainly sold to the Chilean Navy and Batista’s Cuba. Very simple – on the order of an M3 – design gussied up with wood furniture to look sorta like a Thompson. I’ve read that one problem was that there was no obvious front or back to the magazine, which made it easy to insert backwards. Again, why they didn’t just use the M3 mag…. supposedly some M6s were sold to US LEOs and are probably resting in rural sheriff’s safes between the Colt Monitor BARs and the Ithaca Auto-Burglars….
Is: which allow the housing to be used as a foregrip with risking bending the magazine or “canting” it, causing a jam
shouldn’t it be without in place of with?
“Argentine experimentation with SMG design predates WW2, as seen here”
Know you history behind it?
I am fascinated with the automatic full/semi closed bolt switch. Just pull it hard and you get a lot of bullets while retaining the closed bolt accuracy, seems to me to be a great feature on a smg. It would be interesting to make some AR-15 trigger groups with this feature and have our military play with the tactics to see if it is something that would be useful in real world situations. One thing I find the most fascinating about this web site is that just because a gun failed a government test in the 1930’s doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
I suspect that those two might turn out to be totally and completely independent variables – only occasionally meeting through totally random chance.
Can the MG-34’s rocking trigger also make a come back? It’s less prone to panic-induced sprays. The Thompson T2’s biggest failing, in my opinion, seems to be operational weight. It looks heavier than a Thompson M1, if that’s even possible for a paratrooper’s main weapon (assuming that paratroopers usually don’t get heavy infantry rifles like the M1 Garand until they get to the conveniently located weapons canister after securing their drop zone). If the design team was going for an “every man’s weapon,” the goal apparently was not achieved. It doesn’t help that .45 ACP is restricted to street fighting range (low muzzle velocity).
If I could, I would rather get a Sturmgewehr, a Danuvia 43M, or a CZ Model S with scope, bipod, and Maxim Silencer…
See Star Z-62;
That odd-looking trigger worked just like an MG-34’s. Pull the lower “crescent” for single shots, pull the upper one for full-auto.
In service, it proved to be a maintenance PITA, and was replaced by the Star Z-70;
Which is basically the Z-62 with a Sten-type trigger and selector switch assembly. (Side-to-side pushbutton; center is safe, all the way left is single-shot, all the way right is full-auto.)
Other weapons have used “pull-through” triggers for fire-selection (the Steyr AUG series being the most obvious case), but generally, the searage tends to be more complicated, expensive to machine, and less resistant to service wear and damage than a more single-minded setup with a separate safety/selector switch.
The T2 was heavier than the M1928/etc., which was one of the reason it was rejected. IMHO, they’d have all done better to stick with the original Winchester M1 Carbine. As originally tested in 1940, it was selective-fire; the full-auto option was turned down as “unnecessary” by the Ordnance Board.
They’d changed their tune by mid-’44. I personally believe that if every one of the 6 million or so M1 carbines we produced had been selective-fire (and if they’d all had the full-round bolt instead of that scalloped early bolt that tended to crack after a few hundred rounds), the M1 and M1A1 Thompson, and the M3, might never have been put into production.
In a .30 Carbine vs. SMG fight, bet on the guy with the Carbine. Ask any member of the 27th Infantry Regiment (“The Wolfhounds”) who served in Korea about that one;
Well, eon, this is something that continues to baffle me: Once the “U.S. carbine cal. .30 M1” was adopted, why bother with SMGs at all? I mean, .45 M1911A1 pistols and various revolvers if sidearms are required, but why SMGs? Because the Auto-Ordnance had ultimately successfully sold the 1928 and M1 and M1A1 to the U.S., Britain, etc.?
What if the Winchester M1, or even the original select-fire John C. Garand variant with the top loading magazine had been adopted?
Mainly due to production lag. The Carbine wasn’t really in full production at Winchester, Inland, Uninon Switch & Signal, etc., until late’42. And there was a serious demand for weapons other than frontline infantry rifles even before that.
Also consider that the British Purchasing Commission came over here in ’40, needing anything that would shoot and needing it now. Thompsons weren’t the only thing we sent over; pretty much any SMG-type weapon was sent, including rare oddities like the Hyde Model 35 and Model 109, which are hard to tell from a Thompson in wartime photos. Less than 200 were built altogether, the 35 had been rejected by the British army in 1937, but in ’40 they came back and took every one that was still in the warehouse. (Can you say “scraping the bottom of the barrel”?)
Another factor was tank crews. The M3 was designed with its funny-looking retracting wire stock precisely so it could be more easily gotten in and out through the hatches of an M4 Sherman. Also, since the crew were already issued .45 pistols (not necessarily 1911s; my uncle who commanded a Sherman troop was issued an M1917 S&W), they only needed one type of ammunition for their personal weapons as opposed to the mounted ones.
Finally, there was that mistake on Ordnance’s part. The M1 Carbine was not selective-fire, and full-auto fire was considered a necessity for close-quarters combat. (BTW, this was mostly based on reports from the Spanish Civil War [1936-38] and the little-remembered Gran Chaco War [1932-39] between Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru.) The .45 and other SMGs were the only full-auto capable “light” weapons other than ones in .30-06, like the M1919, BAR, etc.
Nine times out of ten, procurement decisions are based on what’s available. The SMGs were what was available.
While the Gran Chaco War may be little-remembered, do recall that it was fought by Bolivia and Paraguay between 1932-1935 at a time when German WWI vets were all the rage as trainers and, erm, security contractors of the day, and it was the UK, not the U.S.A. and Russia that was the largest arms exporter.
There were border wars between Peru and Ecuador in the early 1940s. Brazilian state police–outgrowths of the old state militias–battled in a brief civil war where Paulista separatists rebelled against the central government in a bid to decouple the “locomotive” of Säo Paulo from the “box cars” of the rest of the nation, in which Czech arms shipments were utilized. In the Northeast, some MP28.II and Erma SMGs were used alongside Lugers and Mauser rifles in the final suppression of a form of brigandage known as “cangaço” and its bandit practitioners “cangaçeiros” in addition to Hatfield-McCoy-type multi-generationa feuds. Many Winchesters as well.
Thanks for the “what’s available” premise. I’m totally persuaded! The Brits even purchased fairly odd stuff like the troublesome S&W 9mm light rifle, no?
“The Brits even purchased fairly odd stuff like the troublesome S&W 9mm light rifle, no?”
They feared German invasion (see Unternehmen Seelöwe) so they bring and/or manufacture ANY weapon they can, petrol bomb (Molotov cocktail) are most obvious example, for more see info:
ATF definitions and perhaps individual field office definitions and requirements seem to have varied widely over the decades and by region. Several older dewats in a semi-local museum have only the following done to each of them; bolts spot welded shut, a small torch cut in the chamber, and (I am told) a lead plug in the barrel.
To be fair, these are almost all WWI and pre WWII weapons, and have been in the collection since the 40’s.
I’ve often read of guns “lightly dewatted” as such, that were able to be”rewatted” – along with others that were sadly required to be over-dewatted to a ridiculous degree under the dictates of over zealous officials.
I thought this was under eon’s dewat comments.oops!
It’s an interesting ‘arms race’ that’s developed between the ATF and [civilian] gun enthusiasts. Over the last few decades, the ATF has demanded increasingly more severe DEWAT procedures to make it impractical — and prohibitively expensive — for anyone to ever REWAT a gun. But then as soon as people take up the challenge and start rewatting the latest ATF-spec dewats, the ATF then ups the ante by slapping down a new set of rules, and the cycle begins all over again.
It’s not at all surprising, as the dewat/rewat rules have evolved from a system originally designed to ensure tax compliance, to a tool for enforcing the ‘Hughes Amendment’ ban on new machine gun registrations (which a REWAT is the only existing loophole, and therefore a target for gun-control advocates).
The whole thing has been taken to ridiculous levels, to the point at which the cost of restoring a dewat can be many times higher than it would have cost to manufacture an all-new machine gun. Which is the whole point, considering that newly-manufactured machine guns have been banned from civilian ownership for the last 30 years.
When metallic 3D printing technology evolves to the point in which the average person can easily and cheaply manufacture replacement parts (greatly simplifying rewats) you can bet that the ATF will step in and change the rules yet again.
A few years back, Stemple used MG34 trigger groups on their STG34k, a newly manufactured (pre-May 86 tube)SMG, which looked like something out of Star Wars.
“Other weapons have used “pull-through” triggers for fire-selection (the Steyr AUG series being the most obvious case), but generally, the searage tends to be more complicated, expensive to machine, and less resistant to service wear and damage than a more single-minded setup with a separate safety/selector switch.”
MAB Modello 38:
solution looks to be good at least from user point of view – front trigger for single, rear for full-auto. I don’t know whatever it is more complicated or less complicated than solution with selector, but it remain on later variants (1938/42 and 1938/44 and Model 4), so it must be worth of its price.
Ah, but Cherndog, panic is the perfect opportunity to induce a spray, no?
The Steyr MPi69 has this feature, as does the AUG/Stg.77, no? Also the much maligned and wonky pre-Uzi, the Czech samopal SA23, 24, 25, and 26, the 9mm versions of which armed MNR personnel in Cuba during the consolidation of the revolutionary regime…
Those wing nuts look like they would always find the most uncomfortable places to rub, poke, and gouge someone who was stuck carrying it.
I’m pretty sure that in a production version, those would have been replaced by “coin-slotted” bolt heads.
Most likely, the slots would have been sized to fit the front edge of the magazine floorplate, or maybe the back side of a P-38 can opener.
Ill make that for a dollar…
Peace of crap gun cost so much money,FG42 even cost less than that..
One thing would be logical if the gun fully functional,but damaged gun is totally unacceptable for price like that plus it consider as defected gun…
This trigger mechanism got nothing to do with MG34,
Knowing US war department wouldn’t accept something complicated as MG34,it must be looks like VZ24/26 Czech submachine gun or even Polish PM63..
When you press half way it single fire when depressed all way it fires full auto..
How it works???
When press half way disconnector activates and interrupts sear,the only extra part might be there science it closed bolt is hammer but everything else same o…
I know how MG34 works and had personaly fired it numerous times in ranges..
I can take apart MG34 without anyone’s help so as Mg42/M53 series as well……
There is one different MG42 exists known as Austrian MG74,that machine gun have trip in trigger housing which considers as disconnector for single fire..
Same thing you press half way main sear get interrupted but when press all way trip releases sear so MG74 became same MG42 in full auto mode…
MG74 don’t have selectors and looks near identical to any MG42 series,however when you look at trigger you might see extra pin at center of trigger,trip is inserted inside trigger and among full trigger press trip disconnects from sear way…..
I very familiarized with majority of world’s firearms however few still make me a mystery,I don’t know exactly how Japanese Type 62 NTK machine gun works,I don’t know how Italian Socimi model 821 function or looks inside,and what happened with all American Ruger MP9 submachine gun????
Very little information was shown about Mexican HM3 Mendoza submachine gun,I know there an instruction manuals exist on those types but besides little booklet nothing detailed been shown about it..
No detailed information on those guns,despites that I used Italian and Japanese language for search and still nothing….
Those 3 would be consider true forgottened weapons and maybe Ian can dig something on those models,ian was walk all around those models but nothing had been explained yet…
Isn’t the Japanese T62 NTK sort of a Japanese made Swedish Carl Gustaf m/45 “kpist?” Certainly the Italian Socimi, and the Ruger MP9, and even the Spanish Z-84 would appear to be Uzi copies, for the most part?
Interestingly the early Mexican Mendoza seems to be a sort of, erm, “hijo natural” or illegitimate off-spring of the Israeli Uzi and the Danish m/1946 Madsen? The Madsen is particularly interesting–at least to me. It employed a slide pulled back with grooves like a semi-auto pistol slide, but retained a rifle/carbine layout and a wooden stock. Similarly, while it was light weight, it ultimately lost out to the Madsen M/50 and M/53 what with the hinged receiver.
Just try finding anything at all on the French late 1940s trials that replaced the German MP40 and MAS Mle. 1938 with the MAT-49! Ay caramba!
Val & Dave;
The Type 62 “NTK” is a 7.62 x 51 GPMG, that on the outside looks like an MAG 58 (M240).
But if you look at it field-stripped it’s basically a Lewis Gun that’s been modified to belt feed. There’s that unmistakeable bar-shaped “bolt slide” with that evil-looking fixed firing pin sitting on top of it, and the separate small bolt that slots in atop the slide. It just replaces the Lewis’ clock-type spring with a spiral compression spring attached to the stock at its rear end.
The “Swedish K” type SMG was the Shin Cho Kogyo (SCK) 9mm SMG, built by that company not for the JGSDF but actually for the National Police and the Maritime Safety Agency (“Coast Guard”). It was made in relatively small numbers, and never actually replaced the NP/MSA’s primary SMG, the old U.S. M3 .45 ACP.
Today, other than the Type 62 GPMG and the Howa Type 64 7.62 rifle, most JGSDF weapons are license-built copies of foreign arms;
The SCK/Minebea 9mm pistol is a copy of the SiG P-220, and the Minebea 9mm machine pistol is a clone of the Mini-Uzi.
It’s worth noting that in an era of “high-capacity” 9mm pistols, the JGSDF considers the 8-shot magazine of the P-220 perfectly adequate for military use.
Of course, they still issue the 7-shot SiG P-230 in .32 ACP to local police, too.
Maybe they prefer to spend more time on marksmanship training than most other formations do today?
The Japanese police I see all carry the .38 special New Nambu model 60 made by Minebea. Their normally carried in a flap holster with a heavy plastic coated cable lanyard attached to the officer’s duty belt.
Okay, so no matter what, it appears the best SMGs don’t show up until tons of turkeys get tossed out the door…
Which “medium” range weapon would you want for a rapid fire moving target shoot?
1. Thompson M1A
2. MP-34 (o)
3. M1 Carbine
4. Danuvia 43M
5. long-barreled Mauser C96 carbine (or a Luger carbine for that matter)
6. Winchester Model 62
7. Get something else!
You can ignore this post if you prefer…
“3. M1 Carbine
4. Danuvia 43M”
I can’t decide between these two so I go with:
Pistola Ametralladora Cristóbal Modelo 2
which is lever-delayed blow-back like Danuvia and fire M1 Carbine round
oh, now I noticed that it has 2 triggers like MAB Modello 38
And BTW: it should be MP-34(ö) like in Österreich
Sorry about the missing accent mark. I don’t know how to do that on my computer…
Remember to use digit in right part of your keyboard.
Some keyboard layouts allows it, some other doesn’t…
If you are too much in hurry to seek right layout within your computer, Google translate can help you to use quickly foreign kyboards & symbols
Depends on the situation. For an actual fight, an M2 Carbine, unless I could lay my hands on an H&K G3A3K 7.62 x 51.
For a moving-target range shoot, I’d want at least a .45 caliber weapon to make sure the steel ram (or whatever) actually went over backward when hit. In spite of higher KE, the .30 USC round has never been much good for silhouette shoots.
If I was only having to deal with four or five-shot strings, a lever action like a Winchester ’92 or ’94, in either .444-40, .30-30, or .44 Magnum would be an attractive option for “iron pig” busting.
For that matter, I wouldn’t be afraid to take any of the three into a real gunfight. They might not have the RoF of a full-auto weapon, but in those chamberings I only have to hit the goblins once or twice each.
Although Socimi or Franchi model 821 and Ruger MP9 looks like UZI it doesn’t operate that way….
UZI is open bolt mechanism functionality..
Socimi and Ruger MP9 is closed bolt instead which obvious they got a hammer…..
I don’t seen any field stripped Socimi or at least how to take it apart not mention exploded view and cutaway view which is not been seen at all anywhere….
Ruger MP9 not shown how to dismount it in details…..
Japanese Type 62 NTK feeding mechanism seems identical to Czech VZ or UK 59,bolt mechanism passes cam that funny looking shape…
Another words what makes NTK 62 different over FN MAG that Type 62 have much shorter feeding top cover,the most creepiest part of that machine gun is stock and cocking handle assembly…
Despites that today we have FN MAG and it’s modified US version M240 Japanese still use Type 62 NTK….
Mendoza HM3 bolt overwraps barrel like CZ/VZ26 or Beretta PM12 does it,the end cap seems locks entire assembly and only one retaining pin holds it like MP44/STG44 have…..
I had Mexican patent of Mendoza HM3 but lost on hard drive where I had ton’s of military data,hard drive recquires advanced data recovery or data mirroring…
Still it was show how simply HM3 looks like in barrel and frame assembly,it reassembles a bit of PM63 or Makarov pistol frame’s..
Overgrown pistol rather anything else,unlike PM63 which fires weak 9x18mm Makarov caliber Hm3 fires 9x19mm Luger caliber instead and Mexicans seems like it very much and don’t want to replace but instead modify it…
So far there is 4 well known versions of Mendoza HM3 exist,long barreled one is strictly for civilian market and it fires only in semi auto mode..
HM3 just like PM63 is open bolt mechanism…
The original PM63 in 9x18mm Makarov was a substantially lighter weapon than the HM3, thanks to shorter barrel (6″) and weaker cartridge. It was intended as a PDW for tank crews and the like. For such a use the Makarov cartridge was and still is quite adequate with military ball ammunition. The target probably won’t notice any difference between 9mm Makarov and 9mm Parabellum at typical ranges, that is less than 100 meters. In fact a cartridge with milder recoil than 9x19mm is preferable for such a PDW, especially if it’s simple blowback, since it allows the weapon to be lighter and still controllable at full auto.
Modern developments of the PM-63 (PM-84P, PM-98 and PM-06) do come in 9x19mm, because that is now the standard pistol cartridge of the Polish military.
My mistakes! Thanks for the clarifications!
Honestly, I have never, ever seen a Mendoza “in the wild.” I’ve seen Galils in Jalisco, MP5s in Mexico DF, an Uzi on a motorcyclist in Campeche, shotguns, M1 carbines, so-called M1 carbine “enforcer” pistols, G3s, FALs, a bolt-action–M1936 or M1954, and very many M16 derivatives, but never a Mendoza.
It used to be the case that a male householder who’d done military service–bit of a rarity–was allowed to own a single handgun as long as it used a caliber not used by the armed forces or the very, very many parapolice-type forces, i.e. a .38 super, a .380 or .32… Obviously all manner of weapons, Tavor, Kalashnikov, Beretta AR70, AR, etc. are widely available and used by bodyguards, guardias blancas, criminal gangs, etc.
Socimi or Franchi model 821 submachine gun,Ruger MP9 and Japanese Type 62 NTK machine gun consider truly forgottened weapons,very little known about them..
No cutaway or exploded parts view available….
Please try to find information about those models as best as you can….
There is funny looking part on Type 62 NTK machine gun which is very visible on top,I suspect that and feeding cam where bolt glides throught or just passing by…
This seems very identical to Czech VZ59 or UK 59 machine gun,knowing Japanese good they study systems than merge them together,good examples is Type 64 and Type 89 automatic and assault rifle’s…
Type 64 made complex way by combining 3 different systems at ones SKS,VZ58 and Sig..
We can see that striker mechanism copyed from VZ58 so as trigger mechanism partly,bolt mechanism pure inspiration from SKS and main housing is copy from Sig STG90…
Instead 3 simple main parts rifle strips down into 4 parts instead,
Stock assembly with striker mechanism,main housing with barrel and bipod,trigger housing and rear sight assembly top cover which locks bolt mechanism in main housing.
Although Type 64 mostly is out of service in Japanese army it still issued for snipers and special units,newer variation that replaced Type 64 is Type 89 assault rifle which mostly AR18 on steroids,it been add extra burst firing mechanism but everything else typical AR18 with better body design…
Before FN Mag was introduced into Japanese army they invent Type 62 NTK machine gun,like I said it shares parts inspiration from models like VZ59,PKM and Goryunov SGM…
The only ugly looking part is stock and cocking handle but rest is not bad at all….
The cocking handle have longer travel than any other known machine guns and also very volnurable part for dirt and moisture..
Japanese also have tank version of this machine gun known as Type 79,it have heavier barrel and solenoid trigger mechanism that works among electrical contact…
If anybody can find good schematic of Type 62 NTK that would be very appreciated,I found only partial cut out from book cover,unfortunately Japanese not selling their literature over sea..
There is instruction manuals available on all military models even books but they so secretive…
Officialy Japanese army had adopted MP7A1 as replacement for old UZI clones,MP7A1 have more penetration than any ordinary smg in world,exception might be only Russian PP2000 that’s fires special SB9 round (Saboting Point)and have penetration of 8mm thick steel plate…
Literaly speaking no matter what type of armor vest you wear SB9 round would penetrate it through,but if we talk in physics as thermodynamics that there is always counter measurements exist….